[{"content":"This is the field in which I was trained, and which informs my reading of every other archival source I encounter. The central question concerns how early modern governments produced and distributed the normative rules that structured political and everyday life — and how provincial estates and corporate actors contested those rules across linguistic, confessional, and territorial boundaries.\nMy dissertation, defended at Erasmus University Rotterdam in 2016 and published in 2021, approached this question through three cases — the Duchy of Jülich, the Landgraviate of Hesse-Cassel, and the Province of Brittany — chosen precisely because they are not the standard cases in the historiography of early modern political thought. What emerges is a picture of normative governance as a legally-embedded, institutionally-mediated practice: noble and corporate actors deployed the vocabulary of patria and legitimate authority in lawsuits before the Reichskammergericht, in petitions to the Estates General, and in printed pamphlets circulating across language borders.\nThe subsequent NWO Veni project extended the comparative frame considerably, moving from the Holy Roman Empire and France into the federation-republics of the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation, asking how normative governance operated in polities that lacked a strong central monarchy. The result is a richer, more comparative picture of how early modern states — not only monarchical ones — generated, distributed, and contested the legal texts that structured everyday life.\nJournals in which I work in this area include The Seventeenth Century, Early Modern Low Countries, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, and the BMGN — Low Countries Historical Review.\nRelated projects 'New Monarchy' NWO project at Erasmus University Rotterdam — the doctoral research context.\n→ A Game of Thrones? NWO Veni project — governance through ordinances in the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation.\n→ Law and Order: Low Countries NWO Rubicon project — the role of institutions in creating legislation.\n→ ","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/research/early-modern-political-institutional-history/","summary":"How early modern governments produced, distributed, and contested the normative texts that structured political life — and how provincial estates asserted the limits of authority across linguistic and territorial borders.","title":"Early Modern Political-Institutional History"},{"content":"The HAICu (digital Humanities, Artificial Intelligence, Cultural heritage) consortium is a Dutch national research effort, funded under the Nationale Wetenschapsagenda, working at the intersection of AI, the humanities, and cultural-heritage practice. My contribution sits within Workpackage 2, Continual Machine Learning with Humans in the Loop, hosted at the University of Twente (BMS-KiTeS).\nThe empirical focus is the Resolutieboeken of the provincial States of Overijssel — the principal record of provincial governance in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, running effectively from 1528/1578 to 1795. The aim is twofold. The first is technical: to develop and evaluate continual-learning approaches to handwritten text recognition for a corpus that spans nearly three centuries of changing handwriting conventions. The second is methodological and infrastructural: to make the resulting transcriptions, segmentations, and metadata genuinely usable for historians and for the regional archives that hold the source.\nI co-coordinate the Histories of Ordinary People Innovation Lab within HAICu (with René Duursma, Groninger Archieven), which is the connective tissue between the academic research and the GLAM partners.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/haicu-overijssel/","summary":"Making the early modern resolutions of the States of the Province of Overijssel (1528/1578–1795) digitally accessible within the HAICu national consortium for AI and cultural heritage.","title":"HAICu — Collectie Overijssel: Resoluties van de Staten van Overijssel"},{"content":"Digital legal history is, for me, less a sub-discipline than a working practice: a way of asking what new questions become tractable when one has the full corpus of a region\u0026rsquo;s police ordinances available in machine-readable form, rather than the canonical anthologies that have governed the field since the nineteenth century.\nThe core methodological questions are three. First: how do you classify normative texts across language barriers? Police ordinances in the Holy Roman Empire, the Low Countries, France, and Scandinavia regulated overlapping concerns but used different terminologies; only a controlled multilingual vocabulary — an ontology — allows genuinely comparative work without flattening local idioms. This is the work of RHONDA. Second: how do you metadate normative texts at scale, including handwritten ones? This is the question that connects the Bern Mandatenbücher corpus to the Annif automatic-subject-indexing toolkit, and that HISMET is now addressing for the archive side of the problem. Third: how do you build and sustain the shared infrastructure that makes this kind of research possible across institutions and national research traditions? That is the question behind the Journal for Digital Legal History and behind my involvement with READ-COOP.\nI write about these matters in the Journal for Digital Legal History, DSH: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, and JDMDH, among others.\nRelated projects Entangled Histories KB Researcher-in-Residence — HTR and segmentation for Low Countries ordinance books.\n→ RHONDA Multilingual ontology for early modern police ordinances.\n→ Law and Order: Low Countries NWO Rubicon — institutions and legislation in the early modern Low Countries.\n→ A Game of Thrones? NWO Veni — normative governance in the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation.\n→ HISMET NWO XS — topical metadata for archival sources.\n→ Journal for Digital Legal History Open-access journal at the intersection of legal history and digital humanities.\n→ ","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/research/digital-legal-history/","summary":"Bringing digital methods to early modern normative sources — police ordinances, \u003cem\u003egute Policey\u003c/em\u003e, books of ordinances — without losing sight of what made those sources do legal-political work in the first place.","title":"Digital Legal History"},{"content":"The Innovation Lab Histories of Ordinary People is one of several innovation labs within the HAICu consortium. Its concrete aim is to strengthen cooperation between archival institutions and academic research — not as a one-directional knowledge transfer, but as a working partnership in which the questions, the source corpora, and the methodological choices are negotiated jointly.\nThe lab takes its name and its orientation seriously: ordinary people are massively over-represented in the surviving administrative archive (petitions, court records, tax registers, parish records) and massively under-represented in the historiography that uses it. The HTR/ATR infrastructure now in place, together with metadata and entity-recognition tooling, makes it possible to take that imbalance seriously at corpus scale. Co-leading this lab is, for me, the part of the HAICu work that most directly engages the GLAM-side of the field.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/histories-ordinary-people/","summary":"A HAICu Innovation Lab dedicated to deepening cooperation between regional archives and academic research, oriented toward the histories of ordinary people.","title":"Innovation Lab: Histories of Ordinary People"},{"content":"I have been a Transkribus user since 2017, a certified Transkribus trainer since 2020, and an elected director of READ-COOP SCE — the European cooperative behind the Transkribus platform — since 2023. From May 2025 I serve as Chair of the Board.\nThis area of my work is infrastructural in two senses simultaneously. Technically, it involves training HTR and ATR models, developing transcription and segmentation protocols for early modern handwriting, evaluating recognition engines against one another and against large-language-model-based approaches, and testing automatic subject indexing on normative corpora. The public ATR models I have coordinated — the Dutch Dean, Dutch Demeter, Dutchess, and the NeoLatin Ravenstein collections, among others — are the practical output of this technical work.\nInstitutionally, the question is one I find at least as pressing: who owns and sustains the digital infrastructure on which archival and heritage research increasingly depends? READ-COOP\u0026rsquo;s cooperative model — a Societas Cooperativa Europaea with university, archive, and individual members — is my practical answer to that question.\nThe HAICu work-package at the University of Twente applies these commitments to a specific regional corpus — the resolutions of the States of Overijssel (1528/1578–1795) — whilst HISMET addresses the archive-side metadata problem that typically falls outside the scope of researcher-oriented digitisation projects.\nI write about these matters for Open Research Europe, the International Journal of Digital Humanities, and JDMDH, and produce regular Transkribus webinars in Dutch, English, and French.\nRelated projects HAICu — Collectie Overijssel Making the resolutions of the States of Overijssel digitally accessible via continual machine learning.\n→ Innovation Lab: Histories of Ordinary People HAICu Innovation Lab bridging archival institutions and academic research.\n→ HISMET NWO XS — topical metadata tools for archival sources.\n→ READ-COOP SCE The European cooperative behind Transkribus.\n→ Entangled Histories KB Researcher-in-Residence — dataset of 107 books of ordinances with HTR transcriptions.\n→ ","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/research/ai-cultural-heritage-glam/","summary":"Building, training, and sustaining the automatic text recognition tools that make handwritten and early-printed archival sources digitally accessible — and the cooperative institutional questions about who owns and maintains that infrastructure.","title":"AI and Digital Methods for Cultural Heritage and GLAM"},{"content":"HISMET (HIStorical METadata) is a small, focused project — funded under the NWO Open Science XS scheme — that addresses a specific gap in the current state of archival digitisation: while transcription and segmentation pipelines have matured rapidly, topical metadata creation has lagged behind, and where it exists it is overwhelmingly tuned for researcher-side use rather than for the daily workflow of the archives that hold the source.\nThe project develops tooling for archive-side topical metadata creation, tested on a concrete corpus and evaluated against both manual archival practice and existing automated subject-indexing systems (notably Annif). It supervises four student assistants and serves, in part, as a training project for the next generation of archive-attentive digital humanists.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/hismet/","summary":"An NWO XS-funded project to develop a tool for the creation of topical metadata for archival sources, supervising four student assistants.","title":"HISMET — Topical Metadata for Archival Sources"},{"content":"I have been a Transkribus user since 2017, a certified Transkribus trainer since 2020, and an elected director of READ-COOP SCE — the European cooperative behind the Transkribus platform — since 2023; from May 2025 I serve as Chair of the Board.\nMy work in this area is infrastructural in two senses simultaneously. Technically, it involves training HTR and ATR models, developing transcription and segmentation protocols for early modern handwriting, evaluating recognition engines against each other and against large-language-model-based approaches, and testing automatic subject indexing on normative corpora. The public ATR models I have coordinated — the Dutch Dean, Dutch Demeter, Dutchess, and the NeoLatin Ravenstein collections among others — are the practical output of this technical work.\nInstitutionally, the question is one I find at least as pressing: who owns and sustains the digital infrastructure on which humanities scholarship increasingly depends? READ-COOP\u0026rsquo;s cooperative model — a Societas Cooperativa Europaea with university, archive, and individual members — is my practical answer to that question. It is also an experiment in whether public-good digital infrastructure can survive the end of project-based EU funding, and whether the scholarly communities that depend on it can be persuaded to take collective ownership of it.\nThe HAICu work-package at the University of Twente applies these commitments to a specific regional corpus — the resolutions of the States of Overijssel (1528/1578–1795) — while HISMET addresses the archive-side metadata problem that typically falls outside the scope of researcher-oriented digitisation projects.\nI write about these matters for Open Research Europe, the International Journal of Digital Humanities, JDMDH, and the Computational Humanities Research (CHR) proceedings, and produce regular Transkribus webinars in Dutch, English, and (in collaboration) French.\nRelated projects HAICu — Overijssel Making the resolutions of the States of Overijssel digitally accessible via continual machine learning.\n→ Innovation Lab: Histories of Ordinary People HAICu Innovation Lab — bridging archival institutions and academic research.\n→ HISMET NWO XS — topical metadata tools for archival sources.\n→ READ-COOP SCE The European cooperative behind Transkribus — cooperative infrastructure for HTR.\n→ Entangled Histories KB Researcher-in-Residence — dataset of 107 books of ordinances with HTR transcriptions.\n→ ","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/research/htr-glam-infrastructure/","summary":"Building, training, evaluating, and sustaining the automatic text recognition tools that make handwritten and early-printed sources legible to computers — and thinking carefully about who owns the resulting infrastructure.","title":"HTR/ATR Infrastructure and GLAM"},{"content":"The questions that concern me here are less about the deployment of any particular technique and more about how the field is changing as a whole. Digital systems now sit between scholars and the sources they study — in transcription, in subject indexing, in segmentation, increasingly in summarisation — and the choices made by those systems are not neutral. They privilege some kinds of source, marginalise others, and embed assumptions about what counts as a \u0026ldquo;page\u0026rdquo;, a \u0026ldquo;paragraph\u0026rdquo;, or a \u0026ldquo;topic\u0026rdquo; that historians have spent decades unpacking.\nMy contribution to this conversation has two registers. The first is synthetic and diagnostic: I have co-authored two State of the Field articles surveying the state of digital methods in historical research, one for the broader field and one specifically for legal history. Both ask not only what has been done but what the field\u0026rsquo;s principal methodological tensions and blind spots are.\nThe second register is practical and infrastructural. The questions I ask theoretically — about who owns the tools, how ground truth is generated and attributed, whether AI-driven transcription and metadata creation can be trusted and for what purposes — are also the questions I encounter daily in the HAICu project, in the HISMET project, and in my work as Chair of the Board of READ-COOP. There is no clean separation between the analytic and the institutional here; the cooperative model of READ-COOP and the archive-side focus of HISMET are both, in part, answers to the critical questions this research area poses.\nI write about these matters for History, DSH, Digital Humanities Quarterly, and the International Journal of Digital Humanities, and present regularly at DHBenelux, DHNB, and DH conferences.\nRelated projects HAICu — Overijssel Continual machine learning for the resolutions of the States of Overijssel.\n→ Innovation Lab: Histories of Ordinary People HAICu Innovation Lab — bridging archival institutions and academic research.\n→ HISMET NWO XS — topical metadata tools for archival sources.\n→ READ-COOP SCE Cooperative infrastructure for automatic text recognition in cultural heritage.\n→ RHONDA Multilingual ontology for early modern police ordinances — Linked Open Data.\n→ ","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/research/dh-ai-for-cultural-heritage/","summary":"What does it mean to do humanities scholarship in an environment where digital systems sit between us and our sources? — both the methodological promise and the infrastructural and ethical costs.","title":"Digital Humanities and AI for Cultural Heritage"},{"content":"This area concerns the broader methodological questions that arise when digital tools are brought to bear on historical sources and questions. Where the previous research area focuses on building infrastructure for cultural heritage institutions, this one focuses on thinking through what digital methods do to historical knowledge — their possibilities, their blind spots, and their consequences for the scholarly community.\nMy contribution operates primarily at the synthetic and diagnostic level. I have co-authored two State of the Field articles: one on digital history as a whole, published in History (2020), and one on digital legal history specifically, published in the Journal for Digital Legal History (2024). Both ask not only what has been done, but what the field\u0026rsquo;s principal methodological tensions and unresolved questions are — concerning reproducibility, source selection, the politics of digitisation, and the relationship between computational and interpretive approaches.\nBeyond these overviews, this work manifests in teaching (the Introduction to Digital Humanities and Social Analytics course at the VU Amsterdam, 2022–2024), in peer review for DSH, IJDH, and Digital Humanities Quarterly, and in my involvement in the DHBenelux and DHNB communities.\nI write about these matters for History, DSH, and DHBenelux.\nRelated projects RHONDA Multilingual ontology for early modern police ordinances — Linked Open Data infrastructure for the field.\n→ Journal for Digital Legal History Open-access journal at the intersection of legal history and digital humanities.\n→ HISMET NWO XS — automatic topical metadata for archival sources.\n→ ","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/research/digital-humanities-historical-research/","summary":"What changes — and what is lost — when historians apply computational methods to their sources? Synthetic and diagnostic perspectives on the state of digital history and digital legal history.","title":"Digital Humanities for Historical Research"},{"content":"READ-COOP SCE is the cooperative society that owns and develops Transkribus, the European platform for handwritten and printed text recognition. The cooperative model — a Societas Cooperativa Europaea with university, archive, and individual members across Europe — was a deliberate choice in 2019: rather than spinning the platform out as a commercial company or allowing it to lapse with the end of EU project funding, the consortium chose to convert it into a member-owned cooperative.\nI was elected Volunteer Director (\u0026ldquo;Community Director\u0026rdquo;) in 2023 and have served as Chair of the Board since May 2025. The work is partly governance, partly community-building, partly institutional advocacy: the case for cooperatively-owned infrastructure in the cultural-heritage and digital-humanities space is one I make publicly, in writing (the 2025 Open Research Europe paper with Melissa Terras and others) and in conference contributions across Europe and the UK.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/read-coop/","summary":"The European cooperative behind the Transkribus platform, sustaining a piece of public-good digital infrastructure for handwritten text recognition.","title":"READ-COOP SCE — Transkribus Cooperative"},{"content":"The Journal for Digital Legal History (JDLH) is, to my knowledge, the first dedicated venue for peer-reviewed scholarship at the intersection of legal history and the digital humanities. I co-founded it in 2022 with Dirk Heirbaut and Florenz Volkaert (Ghent University), and we serve as co-editors-in-chief. The journal is open-access, hosted by Ghent University Library, and publishes both research articles and methodological State of the Field contributions.\nRecent volumes have included the special issue \u0026ldquo;Gute Policey\u0026rdquo; and Police Ordinances: Local Regimes and Digital Methods (2024, co-edited with Karl Härter and Wolfgang Wüst) and the State of the Field: Digital Legal History article (2024). A multilingual classification of Policeymaterien appears in volume 4 (2025).\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/jdlh/","summary":"An open-access, peer-reviewed journal at the intersection of legal history and digital humanities, co-edited with Dirk Heirbaut and Florenz Volkaert (UGent).","title":"Journal for Digital Legal History"},{"content":"The Political Culture, Parliaments and Sovereignty in Central Europe (PCPSce) COST Action (CA23137) brings together researchers from across Europe working on the history of representative institutions, political culture, and the exercise of sovereignty in Central Europe from the medieval period to the present.\nWithin the Action, I serve as Co-Chair of the Young Researchers \u0026amp; Innovators (YRI) working group, which focuses on supporting early-career researchers, facilitating networking and mentorship across national boundaries, and integrating digital and computational approaches into the comparative study of representative institutions.\nFor more information about the Action, see the PCPSce website.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/cost-action-pcpsce/","summary":"Co-Chair of the Young Researchers \u0026amp; Innovators working group within the Political Culture, Parliaments and Sovereignty in Central Europe COST Action.","title":"COST Action PCPSce (CA23137)"},{"content":"The Veni project asked a deceptively simple comparative question. Both the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation were federation-republics in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries — both were multi-confessional, both relied on contested sovereignty distributed across constituent provinces or cantons, both governed substantially through normative texts issued at provincial or cantonal level. How did their normative repertoires diverge or converge, in form, in subject matter, and in the mechanisms of their implementation?\nMethodologically, the project combined classical comparative legal-historical work — close reading of ordinances, attention to the institutional provenance of each text — with the digital methods I had developed during the Rubicon project (segmentation, automatic metadating, multilingual classification). The Bern Mandatenbücher corpus, digitised within the project, has become the empirical core of the forthcoming Klostermann monograph.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/game-of-thrones/","summary":"A four-year NWO Veni project comparing how the federation-republics of the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation governed through ordinances and norms.","title":"A Game of Thrones? Social Order and Governance in the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation, 1576–1701"},{"content":"The KB Researcher-in-Residence programme allowed for an intensive, half-year engagement with the National Library\u0026rsquo;s collection of Low Countries\u0026rsquo; ordinance books — plakkaatboeken — between roughly 1500 and 1800. The output was a published dataset (107 books, with HTR transcriptions and provisional segmentation), three Public Models on Transkribus (Dutch_Gothic_Print, Dutch_Romantype_Print, French_18thC_print), and a series of three blog posts on the KB Lab site.\nThe project was, in effect, the proof-of-concept that a HTR-and-segmentation pipeline could be applied at corpus scale to printed normative texts of the early modern Low Countries. It fed directly into the Game of Thrones Veni project, into the RHONDA classification work, and into the Datafication of Early Modern Ordinances article published in the DHBenelux proceedings.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/entangled-histories/","summary":"A KB Researcher-in-Residence project producing a dataset of 107 books of ordinances from the Low Countries, with HTR transcriptions and segmentation.","title":"Entangled Histories — Books of Ordinances of the Low Countries (1500–1800)"},{"content":"The Rubicon project moved my research geographically (from the Holy Roman Empire into the Habsburg Netherlands) and methodologically (from philological-institutional comparison toward digital legal history). Hosted at Ghent University and supervised in collaboration with Belgian colleagues (notably Klaas Van Gelder and Nicolas Simon), the project asked how the Raad van Vlaanderen and equivalent provincial councils in Holland participated in the production of normative texts between roughly 1550 and the early eighteenth century.\nThe 2018 conference Creating \u0026ldquo;Law and Order\u0026rdquo; in the Low Countries at Brussels (co-organised with Nicolas Simon) and the contributions in the Nieuwe Tijdingen and BMGN — LCHR journals are direct outputs. The infrastructure developed during the project — the Transkribus models, the classification work that became RHONDA — has carried forward into all subsequent projects.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/law-and-order/","summary":"An NWO Rubicon postdoctoral project at Ghent University on the role of provincial institutions in shaping legislation in the early modern Low Countries.","title":"Law and Order in the Low Countries — The Role of Institutions in Creating Legislation (1550–1700s)"},{"content":"RHONDA is a primarily online community — bi-monthly meetings, with in-person workshops at conferences such as Linked Pasts — concerned with the development of a controlled multilingual classification (an ontology) for early modern police ordinances. It connects researchers from projects across the Holy Roman Empire, the Low Countries, France, the Nordic countries, and Italy.\nI co-chair RHONDA with Andreas Wagner (Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory). The classification work has produced two significant publications: the 2023 Building and Deploying a Classification Schema using Open Standards and Technology in the Journal for Digital Legal History (with Wagner and van Zundert), and the 2025 article on the 2020 systematic multilingual categorisation of Policeymaterien (with Wagner and Härter). RHONDA also contributes to the broader Linked Open Data infrastructure of the field, in collaboration with the Data4History consortium.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/rhonda/","summary":"An international online community of researchers developing a multilingual ontology for police ordinances, connecting research projects across Europe.","title":"RHONDA — Research in Historical Ordinances and Normative Data"},{"content":"The forthcoming Klostermann monograph is, in effect, the methodological synthesis of nearly a decade of work on early modern police ordinances. It takes as its object the Mandatenbücher of the Bernese city-state (1528–1795) — a corpus of nearly three centuries of normative governance — and applies to them, systematically, the methodology developed across the Rubicon, Veni, and HAICu projects: HTR-driven transcription, semantic segmentation, automatic metadating with Annif, and multilingual classification via the RHONDA ontology.\nThe book is co-authored with specialists from several disciplines (legal history, digital humanities, archive science) and is intended as a methodological reference work for the field of digital legal history.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/police-ordinances-bern/","summary":"A monograph under contract with Klostermann, applying a digital legal-historical methodology to the police ordinances of the Bernese city-state (1528–1795).","title":"Police Ordinances in Early Modern Bern — A Digital Legal History"},{"content":"The New Monarchy project was an NWO-funded collaborative endeavour at Erasmus University Rotterdam, directed by Prof. Dr Robert von Friedeburg, which examined the seventeenth-century transformation of monarchical rule across France, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Low Countries, and the intellectual and constitutional resistances it provoked. The project brought together several PhD candidates and senior researchers around the question of how princely authority sought to redefine itself — through the discourses of raison d\u0026rsquo;état, interest of state, and the various early-modern reformulations of imperium — and how those discourses were contested by estates, magistrates, and noble corporations.\nI joined the project in 2011 as one of the doctoral researchers. My dissertation, defended on 7 January 2016, examined the use of the terminology of fatherland, patria, and patriot in three geographically distinct but structurally comparable settings — the Duchy of Jülich, the Landgraviate of Hesse-Cassel, and the Province of Brittany — between 1642 and 1655. Subsequently revised and published as Protecting the Fatherland (Springer, 2021), the dissertation argued that the rhetoric of patria in the mid-seventeenth century was neither a sentimental inheritance from antiquity nor a precocious nationalism avant la lettre, but a deliberate, legally-coded argument about the proper limits of princely authority, deployed by noble and corporate actors in lawsuits, petitions, and printed pamphlets.\nSeveral articles in my publication list — in The Seventeenth Century, the Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden (BMGN), and the Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, among others — emerged directly from the New Monarchy project. The intellectual debt of all my subsequent work to this period of training under von Friedeburg\u0026rsquo;s supervision is, I should add, considerable.\n","permalink":"https://www.caromein.nl/projects/new-monarchy/","summary":"The collaborative NWO project (Erasmus University Rotterdam, supervised by Prof. Dr R. C. F. von Friedeburg) within which I conducted my doctoral research on patriot-rhetoric in Jülich, Hesse-Cassel and Brittany — the source of my dissertation, my first monograph, and several articles.","title":"'Reason of State' or 'Reason of Princes'? The 'New Monarchy' and Its Opponents in France, Germany, and the Netherlands during the Seventeenth Century"}]